New Safety Concerns over Chinese-Made Fireworks

Just another product from China that endangers our people:

Last summer, it was Chinese-made toys, pet food and meat that caused concern. This July 4th holiday, there are new worries about the overly explosive nature of its fireworks. This week, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a report saying it found that nearly half of the shipments they inspected coming from China do not meet Federal safety guidelines. That's especially worrying since, according the American Pyrotechnic Association, 98 percent of fireworks used in backyards and front lawns across America are manufactured in China. NEWSWEEK's Caitlin McDevitt spoke with Scott Wolfson, a chief spokesman for the Commission about its findings and why this Independence Day could be more volatile than in previous years.

In the Commission's test of 400 Chinese shipments, 46 percent of were found to be non-compliant. That seems quite high. What were some common violations?
Wolfson: There are very strict mandatory standards for how much flash powder can be in consumer fireworks. Flash powder is the main ingredient that gives it its explosive nature. We often look for those that are over-packed. There are also standards that deal with stability. The fuse length also has to meet a standard, and there has to be certain labeling.

What's allowable under Federal standards?
Under Federal standards for legal consumer fireworks, there should only be 50 mg of flash powder or less in firecrackers, which stay on the ground and can produce a snake like effect. Aerial fireworks must contain 130 mg or less.

Some of the fireworks you found head for the consumer market was actually commercial grade, meaning they were more explosive and volatile. How are such fireworks ending up in the hands of consumers?
The CPSC has seen unscrupulous sellers willing to provide professional fireworks to consumers. It is actually a felony to sell professional fireworks to a person who does not have the appropriate license. It is also a felony to buy professional grade fireworks without a license.

Are there particular brands or kinds of fireworks that consumers should be wary of?
Anytime a product proves to be volatile the CPSC seeks to remove that product from the marketplace. The CPSC strongly encourages consumers to only use consumer grade fireworks and to use them as intended and directed.

What should people do if they suspect they may have such fireworks?
Consumers should only purchase fireworks from an approved source. They should look for fireworks with brightly colored wrapping, that has the clear and legible name of the product and only buy products out the front door - Consumers should avoid buying products in plain wrapping with no identifiable marking and being sold out the back door.

Bush now Wants U.S. Troops to Fight Until They Die in Afghanistan

It used to be that U.S. troops kept being sent to Iraq to fight and die, or until too mangled to fight again. Now King George wants to do it in Afghanistan. And in the end, it will be for nothing. We will never be able to defeat the Taliban in a country that has never been conquered; with no central government. And we will lose both wars because we don't have the resources to fight two wars in countries where we don't speak the language and the population is hostile towards us. Our troops are just cannon fodder just as they were in Vietnam.

The Pentagon has extended the tour of 2,200 Marines in Afghanistan, after insisting for months the unit would come home on time.

The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is doing combat operations in the volatile south, will stay an extra 30 days and come home in early November rather than October, Marine Col. David Lapan confirmed Thursday.

Military leaders as recently as Wednesday stressed the need for additional troops in Afghanistan. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has often praised the work of the 24th M.E.U. in fighting Taliban militants in Helmand Province.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, has repeatedly said he did not intend to extend or replace the U.S. Marines in Afghanistan, calling their deployment there an extraordinary, one-time effort to help tamp down the increasing violence in the south.

Asked about the possibility of an extension in early May, Gates said he would "be loathe to do that." He added that "no one has suggested even the possibility of extending that rotation."

Lapan said Thursday that commanders in Afghanistan asked that the Marines stay longer.

[...]The Pentagon has said that more U.S. forces cannot be sent to the Afghan fight until decisions are made to further reduce troop levels in Iraq. In the last two months, violence in Afghanistan has led to more U.S. and coalition casualties there than in Iraq, and June was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the war began.

"The Taliban and their supporters have, without question, grown more effective and more aggressive in recent weeks ... as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate," Mullen told a Pentagon press conference Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the politicians just play politics:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama waded into controversy on Thursday over his plans to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq, first saying he might "refine" his views but later declaring his stance had remained unchanged for more than a year.

Obama was forced to call reporters back for a second news conference in Fargo, North Dakota, after he initially left open the possibility of revising his 16-month timetable for pulling U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

"Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the joint chiefs of staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war," Obama told reporters in his second news conference.

But he added: "I would be a poor commander in chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account."

At an earlier news conference, the Illinois senator had said he could "refine" his stance after he visits Iraq.

Bush Supported Iraq Oil Deal Benefiting his Texas Friend

More proof that Iraq war was about oil:

U.S. officials condoned Hunt Oil Co. efforts to obtain an exploration deal with Iraq’s Kurdish regional government, contrary to public statements discouraging it, according to documents cited by a congressional committee.

When the agreement was announced in September, it was criticized as undermining efforts to strengthen Iraq central government, which still had no national oil revenue-sharing law.

Bush administration officials expressed public concern and denied any knowledge of the contract.

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman released e-mails and letters obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that appeared to show the opposite.

“Contrary to the denials of administration officials, advisors to the president and officials in the State and Commerce Departments knew about Hunt Oil’s interest in the Kurdish region months before the contract was executed,” Waxman, a California Democrat, wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

[...]“You and other administration officials have denied playing any role in these contracts. In the case of Hunt Oil, however, similar denials appear to have been misleading,” Waxman wrote.

This follows recent news that Western oil companies would get access to Iraq's large reserves.

Iraq is close to signing oil service deals with several major Western oil companies in an effort to boost its output capacity, the country's oil ministry said Thursday — the first major Iraqi contracts with big Western companies since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

[...]The deals, once signed, are something of a stopgap measure to help Iraq begin to increase production until the country is able to approve a new national oil law — now held up by political squabbles among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

But they also could mark the beginning of an important long-term toehold by big Western companies into Iraq's potentially lucrative oil industry, by giving the companies a bidding advantage over other companies in the future.

You can tell the fix is in when the Iraqi government is trying to cover-up the deal:

Iraq's oil ministry spokesman would not name the companies set to get the deals.

But last December, four major companies — Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. — submitted technical and financial proposals for the five oil fields and received counterproposals from the Iraqi side.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Shell, BP and Exxon Mobil, plus Total, were the four major companies close to signing deals, along with Chevron and some smaller companies.

We are in a Recession. Are We Headed for a Depression?

Today on Morning Joe, Mark Haynes, pointed out why we are in a recession (stock market down 20% from highs, 400,000 applications for unemployment insurance). When do we start worrying? When have the candidates mentioned the crisis? Or even used the word, crisis? What is the Congress doing? Forget Bush. He don't care. Wake up, folks.

Employers cut payrolls by 62,000 in June, the sixth straight month of nationwide job losses, underscoring the economy’s fragile state. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.5 percent.

The latest snapshot of business conditions, released by the Labor Department on Thursday, showed continued caution on the part of employers who are chafing under high energy prices and are uncertain about how long the economy will be stuck in a sluggish mode, reflecting fallout from housing, credit and financial troubles.

Heavy job losses in construction, manufacturing and financial services, along with cutbacks in retailing, eclipsed job gains in education and health services, leisure and hospitality, and government.

[...]The jobless rate spiked to 5.5 percent in May. That marked the biggest over-the-month increase in two decades and left the rate at its highest since October 2004.

Job losses in both April and May turned out to be considerably deeper than had been thought. Payrolls dropped by 67,000 in April, versus the 28,000 previously reported. And, losses in May came to 62,000, rather than the 49,000 initially estimated.

So far this year, the economy has lost a total of 438,00 jobs, an average of 73,000 a month.

But the crisis isn't limited to the United States, eventhough it began here. We need a global consensus on what to do. We have to stop the collapse of the U.S dollar. And, of course, something has to be done about oil prices. Why isn't the government(s) doing something about runaway prices?

Global stocks fell Thursday as the price of oil rose above $145 a barrel for the first time.

Investors were unwilling to make major bets as they awaited an interest rate decision from the European Central Bank and an important employment report from the United States.

“Rising oil prices aren’t good for anyone,” said Steven Vanneste, an economist at Fortis in Brussels. “In addition to the higher energy costs that businesses face, employees are going to be asking for wage increases, which will double the cost burden on companies.”

U.S. crude oil futures for August delivery rose $1.80 to $145.37, beating the record of $144.57 a barrel set Wednesday in New York.

The situation in Japan is particularly disconcerting:

Japan's key stock index extended its sell-off to an 11th straight session Thursday — its longest slide in 54 years.

[...]The Nikkei has lost more than eight percent of its value over the 11-day fall, which is the longest losing streak since the index stumbled for 15 straight trading days starting April 28, 1954.

McCain Campaign in Disarray

I think McCain is too much of a control freak to run an effective Presidential campaign. The same thing happened in 2000. He doesn't listen very well.

John McCain put a top adviser in control of day-to-day campaign operations Wednesday after weeks of private concerns among Republicans that the GOP presidential campaign had not made the transition for the general election.

Steve Schmidt, a veteran of President Bush's re-election and a member of the Arizona senator's inner circle, will oversee daily political, strategy, coalitions, scheduling and communications efforts from the campaign's northern Virginia headquarters.

The campaign's estimated 300-person staff will report to Schmidt, who will report to campaign manager Rick Davis.

Davis will continue to focus on long-term planning, the vice presidential search, fundraising and the national convention but Schmidt's added responsibilities mean the campaign manager's load now will be somewhat lighter. Davis took the reins of the campaign almost exactly a year ago amid a major staff shake-up and has been the subject of Democratic criticism for his past lobbying work.

He told the staff of Schmidt's expanded role at a Wednesday meeting at headquarters, saying that Schmidt would have "full operational control" of the campaign's daily activities.

This from the NY Times:

Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign has gone through its second shake-up in a year. Responding to Republican concerns that his candidacy was faltering, Mr. McCain put a veteran of President Bush’s 2004 campaign in charge of day-to-day operations and stepped away from a plan to have the campaign run by 11 regional managers, Mr. McCain’s aides said Wednesday.

The installation of Steve Schmidt, who worked closely with Karl Rove, at Mr. McCain’s headquarters represented a sharp diminishment of the responsibilities of Rick Davis, who has been Mr. McCain’s campaign manager since the last shake-up nearly a year ago.

The shift was approved by Mr. McCain after several of his aides, including Mr. Schmidt, went to him about 10 days ago and warned him that he was in danger of losing the presidential election to Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, unless he revamped his campaign operation, two officials close to the campaign said.

Mr. Schmidt’s elevation is the latest sign of increasing influence of veterans of Mr. Rove’s shop in the McCain operation. Nicolle Wallace, who was communications director for Mr. Bush in the 2004 campaign (and in his White House) has joined the campaign as a senior adviser, and will travel with Mr. McCain every other week. Greg Jenkins, another veteran of Mr. Rove’s operation who is a former Fox News producer and director of the presidential advance team in the Bush White House, was hired by Mr. Schmidt last week after a series of what Mr. McCain’s advisers acknowledged were poorly executed campaign events.

This from U.S.News:

It was a long time coming: Today's shake-up of GOP nominee John McCain's leadership team follows weeks of harsh—and increasingly public—criticism by influential members of his own party who say they have been alarmed at what they have seen as the campaign's lack of focus and poor planning.

[...]Top Republicans have been expressing frustration about the lack of focus of McCain's campaign, its failure to hit a consistent "message of the day," its lack of outreach to cultural conservatives, and poorly stage-managed campaign events. "His schedule has been unbelievable," said one strategist close to the McCain campaign. "They have him all over the place, no consistency—it's been incredible."

900 Case Backlog - Taxpayers Defrauded by Drugmakers, Contractors

The rights of consumers is a secondary concern of the government. The profits of big business are always the first concern in America. This is from the Washington Post:

More than 900 cases alleging that government contractors and drugmakers have defrauded taxpayers out of billions of dollars are languishing in a backlog that has built up over the past decade because the Justice Department cannot keep pace with the surge in charges brought by whistle-blowers, according to lawyers involved in the disputes.

The issue is drawing renewed interest among lawmakers and nonprofit groups because many of the cases involve the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rising health-care payouts, and privatization of government functions -- all of which offer rich new opportunities to swindle taxpayers.

Since 2001, 300 to 400 civil cases have been filed each year by employees charging that their companies defrauded the government. But under the cumbersome process that governs these cases, Justice Department lawyers must review them under seal, and whistle-blowers routinely wait 14 months or longer just to learn whether the department will get involved. The government rejects about three-quarters of the cases it receives, saying that the vast majority have little merit.

Disputes can stay buried for years more while the government investigates the allegations."Even if no new cases are filed, it might take 10 years for the Department of Justice to clear its desk. Cases in the backlog represent a lot of money being left on the table," said Patrick Burns, a spokesman for Taxpayers Against Fraud, which advocates for Justice to receive more funding to support cases by whistle-blowers and their attorneys.

Supporters of federal intervention in the cases say the dividends are substantial: In recent years, verdicts and settlements have returned nearly $13 billion to the U.S. government.

At issue in most of the cases is whether companies knowingly sold defective products or overcharged federal agencies for items sold at home or offered to U.S. troops overseas. Under the Civil War-era False Claims Act, workers who file lawsuits alleging such schemes cannot discuss them or even disclose their existence until Justice decides whether to step in.

By its own account, the 75-lawyer unit in Washington that reviews the sensitive lawsuits is overloaded and understaffed. Only about 100 cases a year are investigated by the team, which works out of the commercial litigation branch of Justice's civil division.

Critics argue that the delays are at least partly the result of foot-dragging by Justice and the federal agencies whose position it represents, especially in the touchy area of suppliers that may have overbilled the government for equipment, food and other items used by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Salmonella Mystery: What If It were a Terror Attack?

The FBI was forced to payoff a scientist whom they accused of being behind the anthrax attacks, when it was al Qaeda that was behind it. They failed to prevent 9/11 eventhough there were plenty of warnings. Now the government can't find what is behind the Salmonella poisonings. For all we know it could be a terror attack.

The federal government has expanded its investigation into an outbreak of salmonella illness to include items commonly eaten with tomatoes, health officials said Tuesday.

"Tomatoes are not off the hook," said Dr. David Acheson, associate commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration. "It's just that there's clearly a need to think beyond tomatoes."

The outbreak of illness linked to Salmonella Saintpaul, a rare form of the bacteria, has sickened 869 people, 107 of whom have been hospitalized, said Dr. Robert Tauxe, deputy director of the Division of Foodborne, Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The outbreak began in mid-April, and the most recent case was reported June 20, implying that the outbreak is ongoing, Tauxe said.

More than half the illnesses have been diagnosed in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, Tauxe said.

"It's like a detective trying to solve a case. We often have to rely on people's memories about things that are not very memorable: what they ate last week or the week before," Tauxe said.

He said the original tomato warning was issued after interviews with different people revealed a "strong association" with the consumption of raw tomatoes: More than 80 percent of the cases in the initial case-control study had eaten fresh tomatoes.

Still, many people interviewed may not have realized that the things they ate had different ingredients, Tauxe said.

Acheson said that 10 of approximately 100 laboratories that are part of the country's Food Emergency Response Network have volunteered to expand their testing to the wider array of foods that the agency is focusing on.

Acheson would not divulge what those other foods are.

Transcript: McCain Interviewed by Fortune Magazine

Read the complete transcript:

The answer to this question proves McCain doesn't have a clue on the economy. He views al Qaeda as the greatest threat to the economy. Don't you think that is a stupid answer?

Fortune: There's been a lot of bad economic news lately. On Friday we got a lot of bad economic numbers. The stock market took a big dive. It seems pretty clear that the country's facing grave economic challenges right now. But I'd like you to look a little further down the road, to when you're in the Oval Office - what do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?

McCain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another attack on the United States of America - another successful attack on the United States of America - could have devastating consequences. Now having said that, I would say that at this moment it's probably our dependence on foreign oil that is one of the major factors that's harming our economy dramatically, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, or shall I say, affecting our climate and hurting fixed-income Americans the most. Finally is the issue of affordable and available health care for all Americans.

He thinks the economy is sound when almost everyone thinks that things are headed the wrong way.

Fortune: Do you believe the U.S. economy today is fundamentally sound?

McCain: I think the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are very strong. We're still the most innovative, the greatest exporter, the greatest importer, the greatest producer, and by any measurement. And I believe the fundamentals are sound. But that in no way diminishes the severity of the immediate challenge to our economy and millions of Americans.

He likes nuclear power. When did he develop this position? When he decided to run for President.

Fortune: So, long term, we can continue to enjoy relatively inexpensive gasoline and electricity because of the compensating effect of innovation and growth?

McCain: Long term, I do not believe we will ever see the price of a barrel of oil come down permanently or dramatically. So that then argues for nuclear power, for wind, tide, solar and innovative technologies such as batteries that will take a car a hundred miles before we have to plug it in. Or 200. And so I just happen to believe that even though this very high price - and it may go higher - has some artificiality associated with it - i.e., speculation - the fundamental fact is that, even with new discoveries of oil, that there is a greater and greater demand for what is fundamentally a finite resource. So we will be driven to adapt energy resources - energy-producing capabilities - that will eliminate over time - reduce and then eliminate - our dependence on foreign oil. One small example: The French - 80% of their electricity is generated by nuclear power. They sell power to other countries. It's been good for their economy. So, I mean, it's just there in plain view.

Race for White House Transcript: Obama Swiftboats McCain? (6-30-08)

The Democrats have decided that rather letting the Republican attack machine go after Obama they will attack first. In the process, they are using the same tactics employed by Bush's people in 2004. This transcript is from MSNBC David Gregory's, The Race for the White House:

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark fired this salvo at John McCain on yesterday`s "Face the Nation." He`s downplaying the idea that McCain`s experience as a POW should be seen as qualification for the presidency.

Check this out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), U.S. ARMY: He hasn`t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn`t a wartime squadron. He hasn`t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. I don`t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: John McCain himself responded today with this...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think that that kind of thing is unnecessary. I`m proud of my record of service. It certainly doesn`t do anything to address the challenges that Americans have in keeping their jobs, their homes and supporting their families.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: OK. Responding to the response, today the Obama camp put out this: "As he said many times before, Senator Barack Obama honors and respects Senator McCain`s service. And of course he rejects yesterday`s statement by General Clark."

So here`s the question: Is Clark`s criticism a bold move or a low blow, or both?

Michelle, what do you think?

COTTLE: Well, you know, technically, it`s true. There`s a difference between being a military hero and being a military leader.

That said, it feels really icky just when you hear it. And I think it`s a very dangerous move for them to make. I mean, this is a man whose campaign is built in large part on the idea of heroism and character and marshal sacrifice, and to go directly at it, they risk losing a lot of people, especially with a candidate who`s supposed to be Mr. Nice Guy.

MADDOW: Tony, do you think this is a smart move?

BLANKLEY: Well, interestingly, this is the seventh time that a major Obama supporter has taken a shot at McCain`s military record -- Jay Rockefeller, Senator Harkin, Ed Schultz, Tony McPeek, who is Obama`s -- one of his military advisers. So, it begins to look like something other than the random decisions of random people. It looks like it`s an Obama strategy. And he comes out and says, oh, I have nothing to do with it, but it begins to look a little dirty to me.

MADDOW: Tony, do you think though that it matters whether or not it`s true? Should it be debated on its merits, or is it the sort of thing that should be dismissed out of hand?

BLANKLEY: I think that everything that any candidate wants to debate on the merits is fair game in a presidential election. See whether -- you know, where it goes.

I don`t think it helps Obama to make this case, because McCain is not arguing that the mere fact that he suffered and was tortured for five years qualifies him to be president. I think the point that most people understand is it`s a character developer. That, added to 30 years of experience in the Senate on foreign policy and defense policy, might make him the man who you can trust to deal with difficult problems under difficult circumstances.

I think McCain wins that hands down. But nonetheless, I think the Democrats are free to take a shot at him.

HARWOOD: Rachel, I would just add that, look, in Wes Clark`s case, I think you`ve got some serious vice presidential fever going on. And there`s a little auditioning to say, you pick me in a general election, look how I can take on this guy. But I agree with Michelle, it is a very dubious strategy. There`s a lot of risk associated with it.

MADDOW: If he`s -- if auditioning consists of grabbing the third rail with both hands, then it certainly is an audition.

Wounded Iraqi Forces Say They’ve Been Abandoned

This shocking article is from the NY Times:

In the United States, the issue of war injuries has revolved almost entirely around the care received by the 30,000 wounded American veterans. But Iraqi soldiers and police officers have been wounded in greater numbers, health workers say, and have been treated far worse by their government.

A number of the half-dozen badly wounded Iraqis interviewed for this article said they had been effectively drummed out of the Iraqi security forces without pensions, or were receiving partial pay and in danger of losing even that. Coping with severe injuries, and often amputations, they have been forced to pay for private doctors or turn to Iraq’s failing public hospitals, which as recently as a year ago were controlled by militias that kidnapped and killed patients — particularly security personnel from rival units.

No one knows the exact number of wounded Iraqi veterans, as the government does not keep track. In a 2006 report by the Congressional Research Service, Maj. Gen. Joseph Peterson, the American commander in charge of Iraqi police training, said that in just two years, from September 2004 to October 2006, about 4,000 Iraqi police officers were killed and 8,000 were wounded.

That number does not include soldiers in the Iraqi Army, who are far more numerous than the police and, Iraqi commanders say, have suffered injuries at a far greater rate.

In a February 2006 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, the report states, Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the secretary of defense, said that Iraqi security forces were being killed and wounded at “roughly twice the rate of all coalition forces.” If that rate held up, the number of wounded Iraqi veterans might well surpass 60,000.

[...] Nubras Jabar Muhammad, a 26-year-old soldier, was shot by a sniper in May 2007 as he was on duty at a Baghdad checkpoint. He nearly bled to death, losing a kidney and part of his liver, while suffering damage to his right hand. His torso is scarred, and two fingers are locked in a permanent curl.

He says he still has shrapnel lodged in his back, and rarely sleeps through the night. He has trouble digesting food. But the army refused him a disability pension, claiming he was able-bodied, and he was forced to return to active duty after nine months. He says he has already spent about $2,100 of his own money on operations, selling jewelry and a pistol to raise the cash.

Though he had instructions from his doctors to avoid standing for long periods, the army quickly returned him to checkpoint duty, where he is on his feet all day long in temperatures up to 120 degrees. “I demanded that my superiors give me a desk job,” Mr. Muhammad said. “They told me if I keep complaining, they’ll kick me out of the army.”

Vanity Fair: Bill Clinton, Infighting Destroyed Hillary's Campaign

This might explain why Bill is so bitter. He has destroyed his legacy. But then again Bill Clinton has always been a disaster to those around him.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign had it all: near-death moments, hard-won triumphs, dysfunctional relationships—and a staff consumed with infighting over how to sell their candidate. It was a battle that revealed why she came so close to victory, as well as why she didn’t make it.

[...]For weeks she had been pulling 12- to 18-hour days, bouncing back and forth between Ohio and Texas in a plane full of national press who were writing drafts of her political obituary. “Senator Clinton has been carrying this campaign on her own back for a long time,” sympathized Geoff Garin, the easygoing pollster who would later be hired to try and rein in Hillary’s bullying chief strategist, Mark Penn. The campaign had slammed into a wall on February 5—Super Tuesday. Her brain trust had hoped to pocket most of the 24 states that day and force her competition to fold. Clinton herself had publicly proclaimed on December 30, “I’m in it for the long run. It’s not a very long run. It’ll be over by February 5th.”

[...]Any campaign is a mirror of the candidate. Hillary’s need for a bulwark against all the secrets she’d kept over the years prompted her to surround herself with a tight cabal of loyalists, mostly scandal-scarred survivors of the Clinton White House bunker. “People who go through a battle together basically bond. They know their survival rests with staying together,” explains Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, but he adds, “It probably diminishes their efficacy as staff, because they’re more like family.”

[...]ckes was the only member of the Big Five to have ever run a national presidential campaign. “The rest hardly knew a delegate when they saw one,” says a top adviser sarcastically.

But the real flaw in Hillary’s presidential campaign was the lack of any clear lines of authority. Her “team of rivals,” as she thought approvingly of them, assured she would remain in total top-down control. But it is often necessary to tell a candidate what she doesn’t want to hear in a cold, hard, neutral manner. With Hillary, the word among her staff was “I don’t want to get spanked by Mama.”

Obama Speech Transcript on Patriotism (6-30-08)

Barack Obama gave this speech from Independence, Missouri. Read the complete transcript:

We do so in part because we're in the midst of war. More than 1.5 million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 60,000 have been wounded. Over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce.

It's natural in light of such sacrifice by so many to think more deeply about the commitments that bind us together as a nation and that bind us to each other, as well.

We reflect on these questions also because we are in the midst of a presidential election, perhaps the most consequential in generations, a contest that will determine the course of this nation for years, perhaps decades, to come.

Not only is it a debate about big issues -- health care, jobs, energy, education, retirement security -- but it's also a debate about values.

How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests?

How do we ensure that, in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate? And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?

Finally, it's worth considering the meaning of patriotism, because the question of who is or is not a patriot all too often poisons our political debates in ways that divide us rather than bring us together.

I've come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I've always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for president.

And yet, at certain times over the last 16 months, I've found for the first time my patriotism challenged, at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears and doubts about who I am and what I stand for.

So let me say this at the outset of my remarks: I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign.

[...]Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French; the Anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British, intent on restoring monarchal rule.

Likewise, even our wisest presidents have sought sometimes to justify questionable practices on the basis of patriotism: Adams' Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

All were defended at the time as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic. In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the republic.

[...]Still, what's striking about today's patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s, in the arguments that go back 40 years or more.

Some of you remember this. In the early years of the civil rights movement and the opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic.

Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the '60s reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases the very idea of America itself, by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and, perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.

Iraq Opens 6 Oil Fields for International Bidding

Is there any doubt now that the reason the oil man Bush took us to war in Iraq was about the oil?

The Iraqi government says it's opened six oil fields to international bidding as the nation tries to boost production.

Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani says 35 oil companies qualified for bidding, including several majors from the West, such as Shell, BP, ExxonMobil and Total.

He says the oil fields are: Rumeila, Zubair, Qurna West, Maysan, Kirkuk and Bay Hassan.

All the fields are already producing oil, but al-Shahristani said Monday the new contracts would raise Iraq's production by 1.5 million barrels per day.

The deadline for the bids is the end of March 2009, and preliminary contracts will be signed next June.

Remember the Greenspan controversy?

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

This article appeared in the Washington Post:

Five years after the United States invaded Iraq, plenty of people believe that the war was waged chiefly to secure U.S. petroleum supplies and to make Iraq safe -- and lucrative -- for the U.S. oil industry.

We may not know the real motivations behind the Iraq war for years, but it remains difficult to distill oil from all the possibilities. That's because our society and economy have been nursed on cheap oil, and the idea that oil security is a right as well as a necessity has become part of our foreign policy DNA, handed down from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Jimmy Carter to George H.W. Bush. And the war and its untidy aftermath have, in fact, swelled the coffers of the world's biggest oil companies.

Oil Near $143 on Israel-Iran Tensions

Here's another reason why Israel, or the U.S., should not be attacking Iran. It was the Iraq War that lead to the skyrocketing of oil prices. Any military action on the oil-rich Iranians would be cataclysmic.

Oil rose more than $3 a barrel on Monday to a new record above $143, propelled by heightened market fears of conflict between Israel and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program.

A fall in the U.S. dollar to three-week lows versus the euro helped boost the market.

U.S. light crude was up $2.55 at $142.76 a barrel by 7:12 a.m. EDT, after a record high of $143.67 a barrel.

[...] Iran's Revolutionary Guards have said Iran would impose controls on shipping in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz if it were attacked.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway separating Iran from the Arabian Peninsula, accounts for roughly 40 percent of the world's traded oil flows.

Iran's foreign minister said on Sunday he did not believe Israel was in a position to attack his country over its nuclear program.

I think those oil traders see the writing on the wall.

The Bush administration has launched a "significant escalation" of covert operations in Iran, sending U.S. commandos to spy on the country's nuclear facilities and undermine the Islamic republic's government, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

White House, CIA and State Department officials declined comment on Hersh's report, which appears in this week's issue of The New Yorker.

Hersh told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that Congress has authorized up to $400 million to fund the secret campaign, which involves U.S. special operations troops and Iranian dissidents.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.

"They believe that their mission is to make sure that before they get out of office next year, either Iran is attacked or it stops its weapons program," Hersh said.

The new article, "Preparing the Battlefield," is the latest in a series of articles accusing the Bush administration of preparing for war with Iran.

Lieberman: U.S. May Be Attacked In 2009

This is wishful thinking on the part of the neocon leader from Connecticut.

In describing the reasons he believes the Republicans' presumptive nominee for president would be better prepared than the Democrats' to lead the nation next January, Sen. Joe Lieberman said that history shows the United States would likely face a terrorist attack in 2009.

"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman, I-Conn., told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."

Lieberman nonetheless distanced himself from remarks by McCain chief strategist Charlie Black, who came under criticism for suggesting in an interview that McCain's election chances would be improved if a terrorist attack occurred before November.

"Sometimes even the best of them say things that are not what they intended to say," Lieberman said. "Certainly the implications there I know were not what Charlie intended. And he apologized for it. Senator McCain said he didn't agree. And, of course, I feel the same way.

"But here's the point. We're in a war against Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11. They've been trying to attack us in many, many ways since then."

A former Democratic nominee for vice president, Lieberman endorsed McCain for president because, he says, the Democratic Party he joined in the early 1960s is not reflected by the party's current leadership.

He also said that he feels McCain is better prepared to be commander in chief than Barack Obama. "[McCain] knows the world," Lieberman said. "He's been tested. He's ready to protect the security of the American people."

Lieberman also assailed Obama and fellow Senators who called for a timetable of withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and opposed the "surge" of additional U.S. forces pushed forth by President Bush.

"It's now working," Lieberman told Schieffer. "If we had done what Senator Obama asked us to do for the last couple of years, today Iran and al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world. Instead, we've got a country that's defending itself, that's growing economically, where there's been genuine political reconciliation, and where Iran and al Qaeda are on the run. And that's the way it ought to be."

However, McCain's readiness was disputed by retired General Wesley Clark, who is backing Obama for president, despite McCain's storied military experience in Vietnam. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," he said.

"I think Joe has it exactly backwards here," Clark told Schieffer. "I think being president is about having good judgment. It's about the ability to communicate. And what Barack Obama brings is incredible communication skills, proven judgment. You look at his meteoric rise in politics and you see a guy who deals with people well, who understands issues, who brings people together, and who has good judgment in moving forward.

Meet The Press Transcript: Schwarzenegger Grilled

Tom Brokaw has taken over for Tim Russert. And during this program he proved he could be just as tough a questioner. Read the entire transcript.

MR. BROKAW: I can continue the tough questions.

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: OK.

MR. BROKAW: When you ran for governor in 2003, you ran as a fiscal conservative who would change the system. You would bring businesslike techniques. Now you're facing a $15 million deficit here in California. Unemployment is running at about 6.8 percent. You've got the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression. If you were the CEO of a public company, the board would probably say, "It's time to go."

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Are you always that positive? I can't believe it. Well, first of all, let just say that we are very happy that since I've come into office that we've changed a lot of things and improved California and got California back on its feet, and started paying off some of the debt and started to rebuild California for the first time in four decades, and fixed worker's compensation, and all kinds of great things happened. And the most important thing is that I was able to bring Democrats and Republicans together. Now, that doesn't mean that when you are doing a good job that the economy doesn't go down eventually. What goes up must come down, and I think that we see that nationwide. We see other states are struggling, the country is struggling, people are struggling, and I think we see it now all over the world. And I think the key thing for it is to again, bring everyone together and just start right away with an economic stimulus package, which of course is done on a national level, but also each state has the responsibility to do that.

MR. BROKAW: But when you came in, Governor, you said that spending was out of control here, and your rate of increase in spending is about the same as your predecessor, Governor Gray Davis. It's running about, what, 34 percent since you took office upward.

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, Tom, as you know, you've been around long enough to know that the numbers are misleading, because we've paid off a lot of debt, and that is counted in the spending. So I'm very proud that we paid off a lot of the debt, and that we got the economy going again, and that we also got the state jump-started in rebuilding again, the roads, the levees, the schools, expanding our universities, building more career educational facilities. And we're now in the middle of negotiating, also, water infrastructure so that we can secure the water and provide reliable, safe, good water for the people of California, not two or three years from now, but 40, 50 years from now. So I think there's all kinds of great things happening. The key thing is to continue moving on and moving forward. If it is infrastructure, if it is health care reform, education reform, and all the things that we set out to do, and we're going to continue on. Like I said, the most important thing is that both of the parties work together to accomplish all of those things, because with just one party you could never do it.

MR. BROKAW: It appears that the people, however, have some real questions about your leadership. Your approval rating has gone from, what, 60 percent in December down to about 40 percent recently. It's tough to govern under those circumstances.

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Not at all. I'm having a great time as governor of California, and it is a very challenging job and I've always known that when I get into that it would be a challenging job, but it's the most exciting job and it also is a job that gives me the satisfaction to serve the people of California, because I think that California has given me everything that I have. If it is my body building career, my acting career, the money that I've made, everything, my family, everything is because of California. So this is a way of giving something back. And I don't shy away from the challenges, never did. I'm very, you know, persistent in continuing moving forward. So, you know, it's, it's all about leadership and bringing people together and solving those problems. That's the key thing. And California is the greatest place in the world, and we're going to keep it that way.

Say What!? How is this not doublespeak?

MR. BROKAW: You have a lot of propositions on the ballot again this fall. One of them would mean a constitutional ban on gay marriages. Do you support that?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I think the Supreme Court made a decision there. It was apparently unconstitutional to stop anyone from getting married. It's like 1948, the interracial marriage, when the Supreme Court of California has, you know, decided it was unconstitutional and then later on the Supreme Court of the United States followed, I think 10 or 12 years later. So I think it is, it's good that California lead--is leading in this way. I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time I think that my, you know, belief, I don't want to force on anyone else, so I think we should stay with the decision of the Supreme Court and move forward. There are so many other more important issues that we have to address in California. So I think to spend any time on this initiative I think is a waste of time.

Congress Debates While Housing Crisis Gets Worse

This article is from the NY Times:

When Congress started fashioning a sweeping rescue package for struggling homeowners earlier this year, 2.6 million loans were in trouble. But the problem has grown considerably in just six months and is continuing to worsen.

More than three million borrowers are in distress, and analysts are forecasting a couple of million more will fall behind on their payments in the coming year as home prices fall further and the economy weakens.

Those stark numbers not only illustrate the challenges for the lawmakers trying to provide some relief to their constituents but also hint at what the next administration will be facing after the election. While the proposed program would help some homeowners, analysts say it would touch only a small fraction of those in trouble — the Congressional Budget Office estimates it would be used by 400,000 borrowers — and would do little to bolster the housing market.

“It’s not enough, even in the best of circumstances,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com. The number of people who will be helped “is going to be overwhelmed by the three million that are headed toward default.”

Last week, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to advance the bill, and the House passed a version last month. Because of procedural delays in ironing out differences between the two houses, the Senate is not expected to pass the bill until after the Fourth of July recess.

The bill would let lenders and borrowers refinance troubled mortgages into more affordable 30-year fixed-rate loans that are backed by the government. Democratic leaders say Congress could send something to the president next month.

The White House, which initially threatened to veto the measure, has indicated that it is open to supporting the bill if certain provisions are removed.

“The Congress needs to come together and pass responsible housing legislation to help more Americans keep their homes,” President Bush said on Thursday.

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and a central force behind the legislation, said on Friday that recent reports about falling home prices have rallied support for the plan. But he acknowledged that the plan may not do enough to help homeowners or the housing market. Mr. Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that even after a bill like this, “you may need more.”

Other proposals that have been floated in Washington include expanding the current plan to make it mandatory instead of voluntary for certain home loans; having the government buy loans outright from lenders; and providing some way and some incentives to let homeowners become renters in their own homes.

[...]The biggest impediment to helping homeowners is the weak economy. In addition to falling home prices and risky loans, homeowners are now confronting a tough job market. The unemployment rate has risen to 5.5 percent, up from 4.9 percent in January.

U.S. Army History Slams Post-Invasion Iraq Plan-Report

More truth getting out:

A new Army history of the Iraq conflict faults the invasion's top U.S. commander for his sudden decision to overhaul the Baghdad-based military command, The New York Times said in its Sunday edition.

The 696-page report, set for release on Monday, focuses on the 18 months after U.S. President George W. Bush announced in May 2003 that major combat operations in Iraq were over, the Times said.

"On Point II: Transitions to the New Campaign" concludes that Gen. Tommy R. Franks' decision, opposed by the Army's vice chief of staff, led to a short-staffed headquarters led by a newly promoted three-star general.

"The move was sudden and caught most of the senior commanders in Iraq unaware," the military historians concluded, according to the Times report.

The unclassified study, based on 200 interviews conducted by military historians, also says the new headquarters "was not configured for the types of responsibilities it received."

Gen. Franks, speaking through an aide, told the Times he had discussed the Iraq invasion in his book and that he had not yet seen the study.

Meanwhile, the killing continues in Iraq:

A truck bomb detonated by remote control north of Baghdad killed six policemen and a member of a local group of Sunni volunteers who have turned against the insurgents, police said.

The truck was parked along the side of a road in Duluiyah, some 45 miles north of Baghdad, and exploded as police entered the vehicle to search it, said police Col. Mohammed Khalid.

In other violence, gunmen killed the head of Basra's intelligence department Saturday night in a drive-by shooting in eastern Baghdad, local police said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must 'Kiss my ass' for his Support

What makes that scum, Bill Clinton, think that Barack Obama needs him to win in November. Didn't he just cause his wife lose her chance at winning? Now he's guaranteed that Obama won't pick Hillary as his running mate:

Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president's future campaign role is a "sticking point" in peace talks with Mrs Clinton's aides.

The Telegraph has learned that the former president's rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for his support.

[...]"He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.

"You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.

"Hillary's just getting on with it and so should Bill."

Another Democrat said that despite polls showing Mr Obama with a healthy lead over Republican John McCain, Mr Clinton doesn't think he can win.

You want to know why Obama is going to win, Bill? Read this article from the NY Times on how loyal the Democratic nominee's followers are.

Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.

“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.

With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.

The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.

NRA Sues to Overturn San Francisco Gun Ban

The high court has granted the NRA a gift. The powerful gun lobby was almost unchallenged in Washington. Now they seek to steamroll the entire country. And America will pay the price in uncontrolled gun violence.

The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its ban on handguns in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation’s capital.

The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday’s high court ruling.

In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city’s Valencia Gardens housing project.

The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from “sexual orientation hate crimes.” He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said that the Supreme Court ruling didn’t address gun bans on government property and that he is “confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges.”

[...]A state appeals court has overturned a broader citywide gun ban that voters approved in 2005.

The Chicago lawsuit challenges the city’s 1982 ordinance making it illegal to possess or sell handguns there.

And tragically Obama will be no help:

In recent weeks, he toughened his stance on Iran and backed an expansion of the government's wiretapping powers. On Wednesday, he said states should be allowed to execute child rapists. When the Supreme Court the next day struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, he did not complain...

..."I've been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center," said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute...

...And Obama endorsed a compromise wiretapping bill despite stiff opposition from liberal activists. MoveOn.org, the liberal online activist group, asked its members to flood Obama's campaign office with phone calls and e-mails urging him to support a filibuster of the bill.

The changes carry some risk that Obama will diminish the image he has sought to build as a new type of leader who will change how Washington conducts business. McCain and other Republicans have used his recent policy statements to argue that Obama is a traditional politician, unwilling to take clear stands on tough issues and abandoning his principles when he finds it advantageous.